I'm so dumbfounded by this, I had to check my calendar and make sure time didn't skip to April 1st. Did the authorities responsible for this seriously believe that there would only be one copy of these documents? On a case as high-profile as the Edward Snowden leaks?

It really just goes to show you how disconnected these surveiling government entities are from reality. The thought that destroying a journalist or company's private property without authority in order to stifle free speech is profound. To think that the public wouldn't notice, especially when overreaching government violation of personal freedoms is the subject of the information being "destroyed", is even more profound.

I'm so dumbfounded by this, I had to check my calendar and make sure time didn't skip to April 1st. Did the authorities responsible for this seriously believe that there would only be one copy of these documents? On a case as high-profile as the Edward Snowden leaks?

It really just goes to show you how disconnected these surveiling government entities are from reality. The thought that destroying a journalist or company's private property without authority in order to stifle free speech is profound. To think that the public wouldn't notice, especially when overreaching government violation of personal freedoms is the subject of the information being "destroyed", is even more profound.

Sadly, this may be more along the grounds of intimidation and harassment than anything else. Bigger publications may shake this off as annoyance, but it sends a message to smaller publications and journalists who are more easily rattled that they will get a visit from the authorities or will be detained when traveling.

To look at the security apparatus in the U.S. and Britain now, it's becoming somewhat scary. Frisking or full body scans at airports, intimidation of journalists, pervasive surveillance, including video surveillance in Britain, intimidation of dissenters to stifle free speech and in some U.S. cities a policy called "stop and frisk" where people NOT suspected of any crime are detained and frisked by police (a policy that has been shown to involve unconstitutional profiling targeted at non-whites).

Somehow the growth of these policies and their intrusive pervasiveness, slowly developing (like boiling the frog), haven't really been examined in the media. These actions are police-state actions, unquestionably, and are increasingly targeted at those who dissent or may dissent. This isn't acceptable, nor is Miranda's unlawful 9 hr. detention for non-terrorism related reasons. These oppressive laws are all being justified by deliberately inflated fears of "terrorism".

Dissent is healthy for a society and should not result in targeted harassment by authorities. That is rightfully called oppression. The U.S. founders understood this and framed freedoms within their Constitution for this reason among others. All of these developments have gone too far but the people enforcing them can't understand why this is so nor why their actions are legalized bullying and oppression.

They need oversight. They are literally incapable of policing themselves because they cannot accurately see when they've stepped over the line. The judiciary is supposed to perform this oversight, but has been swept aside by official "secrets" and by an atmosphere of fear that has been artificially created through continued "beware of the terrorists" media (propaganda).

Failure to reign this in is going to lead to truly oppressive conditions. If you think about it this stuff it is probably already affecting how you think and act.

Do you feel happier than you did before the Bush/Obama years? Do you feel more free now or less? Has the growth of this pervasive fear negatively impacted your life? Do you actually think that it's necessary?

Britain doesn't have any of the constitutional protections (on free speech and on search and seizure) that the US does. Unlike the US where they at least have to circumvent that somehow, the UK government is free to act how it wishes with no fear of being held to account.

Britain doesn't have any of the constitutional protections (on free speech and on search and seizure) that the US does. Unlike the US where they at least have to circumvent that somehow, the UK government is free to act how it wishes with no fear of being held to account.

Well, the anti terrorism law they detained him with says specifically that it has to be returned if not linked to a crime. I assume they'll decide what crime it's linked to as soon as they make one up.

"There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission."

And I thought it was just a movie.

Edit: In further reflection, how long until reporters will be forced to commit their notes to memory?

Normally it's considered good practice to explain who you are quoting, and use a full name the first time you refer to someone. I read this article and was left wondering who this Rusbridger person is. You imply but never actually state he wrote the quoted material, and make no comment about who he is or why his statement is any more relevant than Joe Commenter.

I'm so dumbfounded by this, I had to check my calendar and make sure time didn't skip to April 1st. Did the authorities responsible for this seriously believe that there would only be one copy of these documents? On a case as high-profile as the Edward Snowden leaks?

It really just goes to show you how disconnected these surveiling government entities are from reality. The thought that destroying a journalist or company's private property without authority in order to stifle free speech is profound. To think that the public wouldn't notice, especially when overreaching government violation of personal freedoms is the subject of the information being "destroyed", is even more profound.

Sadly, this may be more along the grounds of intimidation and harassment than anything else. Bigger publications may shake this off as annoyance, but it sends a message to smaller publications and journalists who are more easily rattled that they will get a visit from the authorities or will be detained when traveling.

Totally agree that this action by GCHQ was not about wiping out the data/evidence to support Snowden's claims. This is about creating FUD.

What might end this security nightmare would be forcing our government to define victory in the "War on Terrorism" because once we achieve that goal, there can be no justification for such a data dragnet. Otherwise, this war is endless. To force the issue, Congress needs to rescind the authorization for the War on Terror, and then de-fund it.

I found the lack of that information somewhat curious. Perhaps it doesn't/shouldn't really matter, but I find myself wondering if, after not finding the entire set of leaked documents laying about in unencrypted form on Miranda's PlayStation (!?!?), someone panicked and decided to just hit the Guardian, directly. Technically, it might not matter. In judging the various actions of the UK officials, however, it might. Not legally or even politically, but in a "character testimony" sort of way. You know, in the court of public opinion and all that.

"I’m going to publish many more things about England as well," said Greenwald. “I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too. I think they’ll regret what they’ve done."

Excuse but that is not journalism. This looks more and more like some sort of operation with a very specific political agenda .

"I’m going to publish many more things about England as well," said Greenwald. “I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too. I think they’ll regret what they’ve done."

Excuse but that is not journalism. This looks more and more like some sort of operation with a very specific political agenda .

I am not impressed by these guys at all.

The counterargument is that once all the information about England has been released, it is protected from suppression. So the more intense the suppression, the more urgent the need to release it, and the less time that can be committed to filtering which parts are actually appropriate for release. If the suppression is sufficiently intense, the only answer is to release it all immediately.

That said, these are journalists but also people, and a human response should be expected. In the end, we can judge the journalists for their opinions but the subject matter they are reporting about can be judged only by the facts. One should not let the journalists become such a big part of the story that we forget to pay attention to those facts.

"I’m going to publish many more things about England as well," said Greenwald. “I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too. I think they’ll regret what they’ve done."

Excuse but that is not journalism.

Uh, yes it is. It's called advocacy journalism. Not all journalism has to be "objective journalism" (the he-said/she-said stories you can read in the New York Times every day).

cops love to charge in and make a mess. they don't have to pay for it, clean it up, or deal with the aftermath. the guys that actually knock in the doors are basically hired goons with just enough discipline to keep them from bringing shit on their bosses -- bare minimum, cover your ass, etc.

so, you send some goons to scare a reporter and "destroy" the data, well, they're not gonna be shy with the hammer.

it's also why whoever sent the goons over needs to be held responsible.

Well doesn't Snowden still have copies of the files? Just send them to another media outlet. People's Daily? Toronto Globe? Der Speigel? GEO TV?

If he wishes to stay in Russia, part of his conditions were that he would refrain from embarrassing the United States any further. His days of sending files to folks are over. It's up to the folks that are in possession of the files to carry on his legacy.

Excuse but that is not journalism. This looks more and more like some sort of operation with a very specific political agenda .

I am not impressed by these guys at all.

Excuse me Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but this journalist just told the world that the world's most powerful governments targeting his family to try and intimidate him into silence won't work, and will only inspire him to write even more coverage of their misdeeds and systematic abuses of power. Greenwald has information that needs to be made public, and the harassment of his family only highlights the urgency of that disclosure.

Definitely aimed at anybody else that may want to publish "leaked" documents.The security apparatus wants to ensure that they send a message that there will be consequences for the journalists that leak information.

However, it was definitely STUPID of Greenwald to use his partner as a DATA MULE, or at least give the impression that he was having his partner carry encrypted leaked files with him while attempting to enter the UK.A fact that was "conveniently" left out of the initial news reports.

Honestly, I hate what the US and UK government have done, but when the partner of the journalist that is publishing the leaked, classified documents is carrying encrypted files into the UK, I actually do believe there is enough cause to allow the security apparatus to verify the contents of the encrypted files before entry is allowed.

Greenwald didn't have the guts to carry the information himself into the UK, but sent his partner. :-(

I sense that both sides are trying to make points and manipulate public sentiment.

Well doesn't Snowden still have copies of the files? Just send them to another media outlet. People's Daily? Toronto Globe? Der Speigel? GEO TV?

If he wishes to stay in Russia, part of his conditions were that he would refrain from embarrassing the United States any further. His days of sending files to folks are over. It's up to the folks that are in possession of the files to carry on his legacy.

"I’m going to publish many more things about England as well," said Greenwald. “I have many documents about the system of espionage of England, and now my focus will be there, too. I think they’ll regret what they’ve done."

Excuse but that is not journalism. This looks more and more like some sort of operation with a very specific political agenda .

I am not impressed by these guys at all.

Remember, the agenda now is to find a way to reclassify Greenwald from being a journalist to being an activist, thereby removing the few remaining media shield protections that prevent him from being charged as a criminal. In order to do that, they need to rile him up and get him to make some stupid moves, all the while hitting the talking head circuit decrying his lack of journalistic impartiality.

I have to admit, I am getting rather depressed by all this rot. Can some wise owl please enlighten me as to how we get ourselves out of this mess? I mean, we will never truly know if the government can be trusted, if spooks are still playing sillybuggers, because to me oversight is a myth. Its a bit like being schizophrenic and doing your own head in over something that may or may not exist, but you will never know for sure.

My thoughts, we need some sort of organized movement, a revolution to reclaim our societies as our own, which uses the technology at hand to ensure everybody has a voice and the few among us who subscribe to the cult of greed and power are marginalized. Sort of decentralized government, I guess you call it direct democracy.

Please help. I have children who have to live through this after I die.

Excuse but that is not journalism. This looks more and more like some sort of operation with a very specific political agenda .

I am not impressed by these guys at all.

Excuse me Mr. Internet Tough Guy, but this journalist just told the world that the world's most powerful governments targeting his family to try and intimidate him into silence won't work, and will only inspire him to write even more coverage of their misdeeds and systematic abuses of power. Greenwald has information that needs to be made public, and the harassment of his family only highlights the urgency of that disclosure.